“It’s bad that we are late to this story,” Binkowski added, noting that Horner often talked about Snopes as if the site was a nemesis, “but it’s worse if we are taken in.”

The possibility seems extremely remote. But the fact that Snopes is questioning whether Horner is still somewhere, waiting to reveal that he pulled off the greatest hoax of his career, is a testimony to just how successful he was at getting people to believe things that were not true.

I like the apparent disclaimer added at the top of the "fake news" article about Trump protesters being paid - the one that accuses the people he aimed it at of being idiots for being taken in, in exactly the terms that those people might use about others:

Quote:

This story is not real. No one needs money to protest Donald Trump. I personally went to two Donald Trump rallies and I can say with 100% certainty that NONE of the protesters were getting paid. This story I wrote is mocking all of you sheep who think protesters are getting paid. Do your own thinking, retards.

The link given for that quote is interesting, though. It now goes to something on abcnews.com (I don't know the provenance of that site (*(eta) and I now notice that it's not "abcnews.com", it's "abcnews.com.co", which shows how easy it is to be fooled by these things even when you think you're paying attention)) and it also includes a list of associated keywords, or "Topics", for the story, right at the top. Here is the list of associated keywords, as I saw it just now:

That is clearly not a neutral list associated with the content of the article! I wouldn't like to say where it came from, but it's interesting. (eta) Less so now that I've noticed that the entire site is fake, rather than (as I'd previously thought) a reproduction of the original fake article on a more legitimate site. It's just a fake list of keywords, basically. But it is obvious that even in the fake list, he was attacking snopes.